Network pics thread

Actually those are netapp drive arrays minus the filer. I sold them recently, but I got them on the cheap. They were fun for a while, but I need capacity and 14 36gb drives for the heat and noise they made wernt cutting it. I had them running off a win2k3 server with an HP tachyon TL FC-AL copper adapter.

xphil3 said:
unfortunately this is at home :D
and the last picture is from, ugh.... I hate to even say it, my CCIE pod. Bascially all 4 switches are fully messed with 4 connections to each switch.
Click to expand...

Amazin you need to even say it, pics of it are all over this section of [H].
 
xphil3 said:
Casey: Any updates on your network? I remember it looking quite healthy way back when.
Click to expand...
Well, my network is no more. I'm going off to college next month and they are somewhat strict about what they allow. Plus, my parents want the bare minimum running at home to help lower electricity bills and not heat up the house.

Here is what will be at home:
homehdl.jpg

Watchguard Firebox III running Pfsense (Added 2GB CF card, 256MB of RAM)
HP 24 Port Switch

Here is what will be going to my dorm:
dormh.jpg

Mini-itx PC running Win2k3 as a File Server with 2TB of storage
Dusty Dell PowerEdge 6450 running ESXi with a couple of VMs like a DC, Testing Web server, etc

I will also be taking a few other things to my dorm with me:
MacBook (Aluminum Unibody)
Mac Mini
Core 2 Duo Media Center PC running Windows 7

Luckily I still have 3 dedicated servers over the internet (One in Florida, one in Texas, one in Arizona)
 
here is mine:

100_0731.jpg


in here first rack is my smoothwall machine, then second rack is my 16 port switch, 8 port switch, 5 port switch then third rack is my windows server 2003 R2 server.

100_0732.jpg


these 2 cases are: one in white is my webserver and the black one is my email server.


and whats not in picture is:

FreeNas Server
2 Xp Machines
1 Computer doing dual boot on windows 7 rc and windows vista.

I am hoping to get couple more servers up soon.
 
OmegaAvenger said:
Wow...

As as a side, do those 4 ovalish shapes at the top on each side do anthing or are they just for looks?
Click to expand...

Looks like cable management, although with the fiber just strewn out it doesn't look like they care to use it :p
 
OmegaAvenger said:
Wow...

As as a side, do those 4 ovalish shapes at the top on each side do anthing or are they just for looks?
Click to expand...
Cable managment designed for front intake vent. N7k-10slot has the same design. Sometimes working for such large companies has its perks :p
 
calvinj said:
Like an old router or two for your lab at home?
Click to expand...
if you're referring to the 6k I had, yes :p but I was talking about being able to play with the newest gear... that picture was taken about a month before the 9k was released.
 
home made rack in a kitchen cabinet. :p

IMG_0106.jpg


Before everyone ask Yes there are 3 cable modems. SB 6120 next to the DIR-655 and 2 SB5101.

Battery backup can run this whole network for just over an hour.
 
^^^^ Sexy :p


I'd like to do somethin similar but the problem I'm facing is my firewall (err.. well, future firewall) is in a full ATX case.

Lol, iunno, will worry about it when I get there.
 
I'm blaming LOCO when we run out of IPv4 addresses, one per person!

just kidding.
 
LOCO LAPTOP said:
Before everyone ask Yes there are 3 cable modems. SB 6120 next to the DIR-655 and 2 SB5101.
Click to expand...
Just cursious, how are you utilizing all the bandwidth? I also have two connections to different ISP's doing legitimate loadsharing. Calvinj, how are you going to do yours?
 
I've got a few sites that I've set up WAN failover for with Linksys RV042's, and I"m pretty sure you can do WAN teaming somehow with them, I've just never bothered to do it.
also curious how others have utilized multiple WAN links.
 
But isn't the fastest possible speed you will get even with 3 connections just 10/1? Because no matter how many connections you have load balancing cannot team them for a bonded connection because of issues with correct routing on the internet side of things? I am not sure, just rambling.
 
CaseyBlackburn said:
But isn't the fastest possible speed you will get even with 3 connections just 10/1? Because no matter how many connections you have load balancing cannot team them for a bonded connection because of issues with correct routing on the internet side of things? I am not sure, just rambling.
Click to expand...

I can team them for load balancing without problems but I dislike Pf-Sense right now. :eek:

EDIT: When I load balaced.
472433776.png
 
How does that work without it teamed on the other end?
I mean they each have their own public IP, so I would still think the peak would be 10/1, it would just mean 3 users could get full 10/1
 
CaseyBlackburn said:
But isn't the fastest possible speed you will get even with 3 connections just 10/1? Because no matter how many connections you have load balancing cannot team them for a bonded connection because of issues with correct routing on the internet side of things? I am not sure, just rambling.
Click to expand...

OmegaAvenger said:
How does that work without it teamed on the other end?
I mean they each have their own public IP, so I would still think the peak would be 10/1, it would just mean 3 users could get full 10/1
Click to expand...

Exactly, the other side would also have to be doing some kind of bonding w/ only one public IP address to have cumulative bandwidth(just like bonding T1's). Theoretically his setup should be using only ONE connection per destination, but pfsense doesn't disclose(or I didn't search enough) the way they do loadbalancing.

LOCO LAPTOP said:
I can team them for load balancing without problems but I dislike Pf-Sense right now. :eek:

EDIT: When I load balaced.
472433776.png
Click to expand...

I am also curious like the others how this is actually functioning(your getting that kind of bandwidth), because according to TCP/IP its not possible with how pfsense loadbalances. They say they do a round robin loadbalance, but how? Per destination(I would assume this way) or per packet? From your speed test it would appear to be per packet but thats not possible due to sequencing numbers and simple sessions. Your second packet(data) would technically hit a server that doesn't even have an open tcp session with you(syn was created on the first cable modem). Do you notice a speed increase through other services?(torrents, other websites, newsgroups, etc)... Even Cisco's products that do loadbalancing do it per destination by default for the obvious TCP reasons, same with F5.
 
xphil3 said:
-snip-

Do you notice a speed increase through other services?(torrents, other websites, newsgroups, etc)...
Click to expand...

I can't really answer how it really worked since I'm a network noob. :(


Torrents: Yes (both for download and upload.)
FTP: Yes (both for download and upload.)
Steam: No (Didn't test to long so maybe it works.)
HTTP downloads: Yes
Xfire: Yes (uploading a file to a friend.)

And that all I really tested since I couldn't get vonage to work and I could not figure out how to portforward correctly. :eek:
 
LOCO LAPTOP said:
I can't really answer how it really worked since I'm a network noob. :(


Torrents: Yes (both for download and upload.)
FTP: Yes (both for download and upload.)
Steam: No (Didn't test to long so maybe it works.)
HTTP downloads: Yes
Xfire: Yes (uploading a file to a friend.)

And that all I really tested since I couldn't get vonage to work and I could not figure out how to portforward correctly. :eek:
Click to expand...

Oh come on, its super easy!
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/How_can_I_forward_ports_with_pfSense?
 
LOCO LAPTOP said:
not only that its also that my intel nics don't work with the current version. It works in the BETA but It's not stable.
Click to expand...

Which MAC (i.e. i82457) exactly, and what exactly is the behavior? I still poke around that driver fairly frequently.
 
$54.95 for my personal, $10 for the other one (HOA pays for 8/768 so $10 is the upgrade.), and work pays for the other.

I really pay $64.95 but If I had to pay $54.95 for all 3 of them it would be $164.85
 
A cool little network I got a chance to play around with this past week...

DSC09741.JPG



DSC09742.JPG



DSC09743.JPG



DSC09744.JPG



DSC09745.JPG



DSC09746.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top